• OK, it's on.
  • Please note that many, many Email Addresses used for spam, are not accepted at registration. Select a respectable Free email.
  • Done now. Domine miserere nobis.

SO WHAT IS YOUR archeTYPE?

naberus

Active Member
Local time
Today 11:21 AM
Joined
Feb 13, 2009
Messages
162
-->
Location
Sydney
I've done a thorough study of archetypes (the 5 basic Jungian ones) which was used in a major artwork I had to do for my final year of high school.

I assume when you ask "what archetype do you most identify with?", you're asking us what our concious selfs or "egos" can most relate to in terms of the sub-archetypes/characters. I'm actually unsure what I would be, probably a shaman or shapeshifter... basically something that is a thinker, but with a touch of rogue/ninja.
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 7:21 PM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
-->
Location
Oklahoma
I've done a thorough study of archetypes (the 5 basic Jungian ones) which was used in a major artwork I had to do for my final year of high school.

I assume when you ask "what archetype do you most identify with?", you're asking us what our concious selfs or "egos" can most relate to in terms of the sub-archetypes/characters. I'm actually unsure what I would be, probably a shaman or shapeshifter... basically something that is a thinker, but with a touch of rogue/ninja.

Actually we expanded to the wider range of archetypes of the Tarot...
 

dwags222

Active Member
Local time
Yesterday 6:21 PM
Joined
Feb 27, 2009
Messages
239
-->
i don''t really identify with the idea of archetypes at all. and it is not like who we are relates to the archetypes, the archetypes relate to who we are. so it is basically just us making up characters for ourselves? but why? what is the benefit of categorizing people as archetypes? except perhaps to better understand how people view themselves and how people think others view them . it all seems silly to me, especially if there are an infinite numbers of archetypes. i am pretty sure my archetype is just me.

is arechetype supposed to be merely a function of story telling and character creation (literature, movies, etc)? this would make more sense to me.
 

echoplex

Happen.
Local time
Yesterday 8:21 PM
Joined
Jan 28, 2009
Messages
1,609
-->
Location
From a dangerously safe distance
^I think the "main" ones are useful though, as they seem to have more of a universal relevance. Anything past that seems to be more reminiscent of a personality disorder though. lol
 

Da Blob

Banned
Local time
Yesterday 7:21 PM
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
5,926
-->
Location
Oklahoma
i don''t really identify with the idea of archetypes at all. and it is not like who we are relates to the archetypes, the archetypes relate to who we are. so it is basically just us making up characters for ourselves? but why? what is the benefit of categorizing people as archetypes? except perhaps to better understand how people view themselves and how people think others view them . it all seems silly to me, especially if there are an infinite numbers of archetypes. i am pretty sure my archetype is just me.

is arechetype supposed to be merely a function of story telling and character creation (literature, movies, etc)? this would make more sense to me.

I think the significance of Archetypes is their close relationship to stereotypes. Sreorotyping is considered by some to be an automatic cognitive process, that we need to be aware of...

The below is the first Paragraph of an article from Attitudes and Social Cognition: Stereotypes and Prejudice by Patricia G. Levine

Social psychologists have long been interested in stereotypes and prejudice, concepts that are typically viewed as being very much interrelated. For example, those who subscribe to the tripartite model of attitudes hold that a stereotype is the cognitive component of prejudiced attitudes (Harding, Proshansky, Kutner, & Chein, 1969;Secord&Backman, 1974). Other theorists suggest that stereotypes are functional for the individual, allowing rationalization of his or her prejudice against a group (Allport, 1954; LaViolette & Silvert, 1951; Saenger, 1953; Simpson & Yinger, 1965).
In fact, many classic and contemporary theorists have suggested that prejudice is an inevitable consequence of ordinary categorization (stereotyping) processes (Allport, 1954; Billig, 1985; Ehrlich, 1973; Hamilton, 1981; Tajfel, 1981). The basic argument of the inevitability of prejudice perspective is that as long as stereotypes exist, prejudice will follow. This approach suggests that stereotypes are automatically (or heuristically) applied to members of the stereotyped group...
(I don't where this article can be located but i got it online somewhere, I have the rest but it is too long to post as an attachment...I think)

Anyway there does seem to be a correlation between Archetypes and stereotypes, and although we think of the word 'prejudiced' with negative connotations One can pre-judge positively as well,,,
 
Top Bottom